Posted on 08/21/2015 4:42:00 PM PDT by mac_truck
In an opinion released Thursday, Justice Rex Davis of the 10th Court of Appeals declared that officials had sufficient probable cause to arrest two bikers after the May 17 Twin Peaks shootout in Waco.
The melee killed nine men and injured another 20, resulting in the arrest of 177 bikers, each initially held on controversial $1 million bonds on a charge of engaging in organized criminal activity.
Final autopsy reports were released last week on the nine killed in the melee, but ballistics evidence remains publicly unavailable, pending the completion of an investigation headed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Both bikers involved in the ruling, Marcus Pilkington, 36, of Mexia, and Reginald Weathers, 43, of Forney, are represented by Austin attorney Adam Reposa.
Pilkington and Weathers filed applications asserting that they were being illegally confined and that officials lacked probable cause that the two were guilty of engaging in organized criminal activity that day.
Thursdays ruling cites a section of the Texas Penal Code which states that a person commits the offense if, with intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of combination or as a member of a criminal street gang, the person commits or conspires to commit one or more of the following: murder, capital murder ... (or) aggravated assault.
(Excerpt) Read more at wacotrib.com ...
A melee killed people? Is that some kind of Fed Govt AI storm trooper?
“A melee killed people? Is that some kind of Fed Govt AI storm trooper?”
No. More descriptive of the bikers.
me·lee noun: melee; plural noun: melees; noun: mêlée; plural noun: mêlées
a confused fight, skirmish, or scuffle.
Were the BATFE involved before or during this “action”?
Publicly, they showed up after the shooting to assist with the crime scene and the bullets recovered were sent to their labs. The bodies were sent out of house as well, to an organization in Dallas. From the name I can't tell if it is public or private.
Just a point of information - the venue here happens to be a court of appeals, but the action was not an appeal. Examining trials are “preliminary hearings,” and decisions rendered in these proceedings are not appealable.
You are correct.
-btw There were two more examining trials cancelled on Weds. and three more on the docket for Monday.
The die is cast - all the judges are going to see probable cause. Better to get bail conditions lifted, which the DA is willing to do in lieu of participation in examining trial.
” Examining trials are preliminary hearings, and decisions rendered in these proceedings are not appealable.”
If the ET does not find probable cause, the LE can still indict.
This is true. Examining trials and preliminary hearings are a waste in practice. But, the act of indictment is not an appeal of an adverse decision at the preliminary hearing. It is an independent act by the grand jury.
Does anyone honestly think if the bikers were the killers, we would still be waiting for the evidence to be released? Maybe the bikers did it, but it just smells like a coverup to me.
That's the $64 thousand dollar question. Who is that undercover cop and what was he doing minutes before? Probably cause because they were wearing vests. We've heard that here before.
“Well, if they had “probabble cause” to arrest TWO of the 177 bikers, that should give gruberment officials across the nation probable cause to arrest any biker on sight... “
Not all bikers are part of gangs. Shame on you for thinking that all bikers are members of gangs.
“Does anyone honestly think if the bikers were the killers, we would still be waiting for the evidence to be released? Maybe the bikers did it, but it just smells like a coverup to me.”
Even the bikers said the bikers did it!
“Maybe the bikers did it”
The parent Confederation of the Texas Confederation that hosted the ‘meeting’ said that the Cossacks started it.
No. Preliminary hearings are only conducted on demand of an accused, so the outcome of any given examining trial only affects the parties in that particular examining trial.
Most of the accused, seeing that the judge finds probable cause when none exists, and given the option of "examining trial or have your bail conditions relaxed," opt for relaxation of bail conditions.
The opinion is available from the tenth court of appeals website Case 10-15-00218-CR. One of the three judges dissented from the opinion (Chief Justice Gray), but no written dissent was or will be prepared.
The nub of the decision is contained in the following paragraphs from the opinion (225kb PDF):
Plainly, the affidavit does not allege that Pilkington or Weathers committed one of the underlying offenses of capital murder, murder, or aggravated assault, one of the two means of committing the second main element. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 71.02(a)(1) ("the person commits or conspires to commit one or more of the following"). Thus, we turn to each appellant's specific complaint that the affidavit does not allege an agreement; i.e., that he conspired to commit one of the underlying offenses--that he agreed "with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense ... ." Id. 71.01(b). The statute specifically states that the "agreement constituting conspiring to commit may be inferred from the acts of the parties." Id. And in reviewing the affidavit, the magistrate was permitted to draw reasonable inferences from the facts in the affidavit. We conclude that the magistrate could have reasonably inferred from the profusion of weapons at the scene and the subsequent violence that Pilkington and Weathers, as members of a criminal street gang, each agreed "with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense" of capital murder, murder, or aggravated assault.Lastly, we address each appellant's specific complaint that the affidavit does not allege that each of them performed "an overt act in pursuance of the agreement." Id. At the hearings, the State argued that, on the day in question, Pilkington and Weathers committed overt acts by showing up at the restaurant--by being present and wearing their distinctive signs or symbols identifying each of them as a member of a criminal street gang, along with other members of a criminal street gang. As noted above, the overt act need not be criminal in itself. See Barrera, 321 S.W.3d at 154. The magistrate could have reasonably inferred that their presence and wearing their distinctive signs or symbols identifying each of them as a member of a criminal street gang was an overt act. The magistrate also could have reasonably inferred from their presence, from their wearing their distinctive signs or symbols, and from the profusion of weapons at the scene and the subsequent violence that each of them performed an overt act by either encouraging, soliciting, directing, aiding, or attempting to aid the commission of the underlying offenses of capital murder, murder, or aggravated assault. See id.
In conclusion, by applying the highly deferential standard in reviewing the magistrate's decision to issue the arrest warrant based on the four corners of the affidavit, we find that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed to believe that Pilkington and Weathers committed the offense of engaging in organized criminal activity.
“Pilkington and Weathers committed the offense of engaging in organized criminal activity.”
Re: overt act:
Weathers said as much in his bond reduction hearing — that he ran over as soon as the Bandido President was “disrespected” and joined in the fisticuffs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.